Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Gayadeen v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 19304 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7425 (6 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.

The petitioner has taken loan from the respondent no.3. According to the petitioner, he has paid part of the loan but could not pay the entire loan. The respondents have issued recovery notice against him for recovering the same as arrears of land revenue. Hence the present writ petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.B.Sahai learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has made statement at the Bar that this is the first writ petition against the recovery and this fact has also been stated in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, he could not pay the loan due to the circumstances beyond his control.

In view of this, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

1. The petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears in four equal quarterly instalments with the respondent no.3. The amount already paid shall be adjusted.

2. The first instalment shall be deposited by the end of April, 2006 and subsequent instalments shall be deposited after every three months. In case the instalments are paid as directed, recovery charges shall not be recovered from the petitioner.

3. During this period, recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. In default of payment, it will be open to the respondents to recover the amount.

4. The petitioner may file an application, after the deposit of first instalment, for supply of accounts with a duly stamped self-addressed envelope, which the respondent shall supply to him.

5. This order shall not affect any auction already held. In that event, the petitioner may take appropriate legal proceedings to set aside the auction under the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Rules framed thereunder or file a suit in accordance with law.

6. It is clarified that this order will not be operative in case the petitioner has filed any other earlier writ petition against this recovery.


samz 19304/06


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.